55
Blood Spatter
could shoot someone at close range without being covered by the victim’s
blood.
Prosecutors felt they had more than enough evidence to convict Sarah
Johnson on two counts of first-degree murder. First of all, the killings were
premeditated because the Johnsons had been killed when they were most
vulnerable. Second, forensic experts had found Alan’s and Diane’s blood
and DNA on the bathrobe Sarah admitted wearing that morning. Third,
she had a motive: her mother had recently forbid her to date a nineteen-
year-old school dropout, leading to a heated argument between mother and
daughter. Finally, Sarah had been in the guesthouse on the premises the
day before, and a Winchester rifle had been taken that day. That same gun
had been used in the killing.
The defense strategy failed; Sarah was convicted of both counts of mur-
der. The defense expert who was called to testify on her behalf with regard
to the blood-spatter evidence was unable to convince the jury that there
was no way she could have fired the gun from that range and not been
covered in tiny spatters.
Examining Blood Spatter:
Putting Together a Puzzle
A number of blood-spatter patterns can usually be found at the scene of a
crime. These patterns are the source of much of the information used to re-
construct the events. Blood-spatter patterns are very much like a puzzle—by
putting together all of the pieces in the correct places, an investigator can
usually determine a great deal about the crime. A detailed examination of
individual spatter patterns, including their positions and orientations at the
scene, can provide investigators with information such as:
